The Election Committee's first town hall: how the fellowship recommends its board

Source: the Election Committee’s official town hall recap, the Plaud transcript of the town hall, and the Board Election 2026 announcement. Last names are initials, in keeping with PIR’s traditions.

The task

Committee members Aili, Jaime, Patrick, Mike and others explained the charge: gather recommendations from the fellowship for new board positions - President, Treasurer, member-at-large positions, and an external advisor role - while the board would ultimately vote on these recommendations, as required by best practices and IRS regulations for 501(c)(3) organizations. The official Board Election 2026 doc confirms the expansion to 7 positions with two-year fixed terms: Executive Committee (President, Secretary, Treasurer, all voting) and Members-at-Large (GSR Representative voting, Fellowship Representative voting, Founding Member non-voting, Other Paths of Recovery non-voting).

The seven seats

The Board of Directors (a 501(c)(3)) has three officers and four Members-at-Large. The town hall presented the seats under their working names; the official Board Election 2026 announcement gives the names they carry now.

All seven serve two-year fixed terms. The GSR seat wasn’t part of this recommendation round: the GSRs voted it in on May 25, 2026, and it’s next up in May 2027.

How the recommendation works

• The form closes July 31. It collects contact information, how long someone has been part of PIR, and their service history, and links to a document with the by-laws and the position descriptions. A suggestion from the room: grow that document into an educational resource on the election process and PIR’s history.
• The committee deliberates through August and sends its recommendations to the board by September 1. The board makes the final choice, as the by-laws require.
• One name or several: the committee may recommend a single candidate for a position (a consensus choice) or several, if several strong recommendations come in. It depends on the responses.
• Consent first: a recommendation only goes forward with the consent of the person recommended.
• The right address: the committee’s email is election@psychedelicsinrecovery.org. A meeting-notes copy had the domain wrong, and the recommendation form had pointed to an old personal address; both were corrected to election@.

What the room asked

• Diversity and representation. Bobby and Paula raised concerns about diversity, particularly regarding people of color on the board, noting that the current board and election committee are predominantly white. The committee clarified that while it could not create specific positions for underrepresented groups - no BIPOC board position exists in the by-laws - it supports fair representation and would consider qualified candidates of all backgrounds when making recommendations.
• “Election” or “nomination”? Mike confirmed the term “election” is explicit in the by-laws, though it refers to board members nominating and choosing replacements rather than a democratic process. The committee explained it cannot create new board positions or change by-laws - that authority rests with the new board.
• Consent. Ruth highlighted that recommendations must be made with the consent of the person being recommended; the group discussed recommending existing board members for different positions, and self-recommendation through the live form.
• Which positions are open? Patrick and Rob pressed for specifics. The committee agreed to make clearer which positions are open and how many are being filled; Ruth noted the GSR Member-at-Large position was not up for nomination - it is voted in by GSRs, was filled May 25, 2026, and is next up May 2027.
• The External Advisor. Several participants raised questions about the External Advisor position and potential involvement with White Bison; the reasoning behind the addition was not fully explained in the meeting.
• Best practices on paper. Paula suggested creating a one-page document explaining the best practices and governance structure, to be posted on the website; the committee agreed to consider adding it to their post-meeting agenda.

Next steps, as recorded

• Christopher (Tech Committee): add the task of creating a one-page best-practices document to the LitCom agenda.
• Patrick: follow up with Paula on which board positions are open, and how many.
• Election Committee: create a one-page document explaining best practices, sources, and a timeline of PIR’s history and governance; clarify in the minutes which positions are open; consider a best-practices section for the by-laws document or website; ensure recommendations carry the candidate’s consent; deliberate and submit to the board by September 1; consider another town hall; remain available by email and phone.
• Fellowship members: submit recommendations through the form before July 31.

The committee’s own recap covers the main story. Below are additional details from the captured recordings, color-coded so the committee can verify each add against the official record.

🔵 Blue = Littlebird’s meeting summary · 🟡 Yellow = Mike B’s Plaud capture

• The committee met twice weekly from early May through the summer, and the meeting was recorded by Mike B. for the minutes.

• Jason B, a pro bono nonprofit consultant, built the board-structure PowerPoint the committee presented.

• Mike quoted the by-laws directly: Article 3, Section 2, “Election and Term of Office” - the board is nominated and chosen by the existing board, which is what makes PIR’s “election” a board duty rather than a popular vote (the by-laws).

• Bobby B.’s concern carried specific history: a slur incident earlier in the year he says he alone addressed, and a request for a DEI committee he says was declined. His ask, in his words: “not a reserved seat - a person of color in a decision-influencing position, distinct from token representation.”

• Diana identified as Hispanic/Latina and deliberated about joining the BIPOC meeting; Jaime identified as European heritage.

• Form logistics: submissions land in a spreadsheet accessible only to the committee, through a dedicated email account kept separate from the board’s access.

• The by-laws authorize up to 11 seats; this cycle the board expands to seven positions with two-year terms.

• The board’s own election announcement (captured in Littlebird’s meeting notes, the Board Election 2026 doc): the sitting board was President Kevin, Secretary Anne, Treasurer Erin S, and Member-at-Large/GSR Karyn; the new structure adds Member-at-Large/Fellowship Representative, a rotating Member-at-Large/Founding Member (non-voting), and Member-at-Large/External Advisor (non-voting, now known as Other Paths of Recovery). Election month: September 2026, announced at the inaugural convention. The official Board Election doc carries the contact as election@psychedelicsinrecovery.org, the correct domain; the Littlebird meeting-notes copy had a typo.

• The committee formed in mid-May and has been meeting twice weekly. The Plaud capture confirms the full process timeline: form closes July 31, committee deliberates through August, recommendations to the board by September 1.

• The recommendation form collects contact information, PIR membership duration, and service history. It links to a document with the by-laws and position descriptions — a suggestion was made to expand this into an educational resource about the election process and organizational history.

• The Founder seat is a temporary board position for early members of PIR. A list of eligible “founding members” is being drafted, and every two years someone from that list will be voted in to carry the founding vision.

• The External Advisor role is currently filled by an advisor on non-profit operations (not legal counsel). It could potentially be filled by an external organization like White Bison (which could also address diversity concerns) or a representative from another path of recovery.

• Existing board members can be recommended for other open positions, contingent on their consent and interest. A preference for a US-based president was mentioned due to the location of activities.

• The committee may recommend a single candidate per position (consensus choice) or multiple candidates if several strong recommendations emerge — this is a response-driven process, and further details will be shared after deliberations.

• No further town halls were scheduled before the July 31 deadline, though the possibility was not ruled out.

• The Plaud’s AI-suggested open items: no formal action plan was established for diversity and inclusion beyond the standard recommendation process; the “best practices” document and website educational content had no one formally assigned responsibility or given a timeline; key process details remain undefined (maximum candidates per position, presentation format for board recommendations, nominee consent verification).

• Mike B’s Plaud capture: the town hall, as recorded
• Littlebird’s meeting summary: the same hour, through the AstroLog’s lens
• The official Board Election 2026 announcement